Allahabad High Court

SUDHIR KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: MANISH KUMAR NIGAM

Holding

The petition was disposed of, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation and deferring the matter to the Director for decision.

Summary

The petitioner, Sudhir Kumar Yadav, a contractual employee since 2018, sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order treating him as an outsourced employee and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay his honorarium directly. He previously obtained a protective order in Writ A No. 3493 of 2025, which held that his contract could not be terminated merely because additional personnel were engaged. The District Probation Officer later issued an order on 08.01.2026 classifying him as an outsourced employee and referred the matter to the Director, Mahila Kalyan Evam Bal Vikas, for a decision. The court, noting that the Director had yet to consider the probation officer’s recommendation, declined to grant the writs and instead directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within ten days, after which the Director must decide within twelve weeks. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without granting the relief sought.

Issues considered

Whether the order treating the petitioner as an outsourced employee and directing payment via an agency can be quashed.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be treated as a contractual employee and receive honorarium directly.
Whether the court should entertain the petition or defer to the Director’s decision after fresh representation.

Subjects

contract employment
outsourcing
honorarium
writ of certiorari
mandamus
administrative law
Uttar Pradesh

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15833 of 2026

Sudhir Kumar Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Uma Nath Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1.This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

" I. a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the part portion of
the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the respondent no.4 (Annexure No. 14 to this
writ petition).
II. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent
no.3 and 4 to pay the honorarium of the petitioner month to month directly treating
him contract employee on the post of District Program Coordinator /Financial
Literacy Specialist without transferring his honorarium to the outsource agency M/s
Apeksha Enterprises, G.T. Road, Kanpur."

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is
working as a contractual employee since 2018. The petitioner earlier
approached this Court by means of Writ A No. 3493 of 2025, which was
disposed of by order dated 05.04.2025. Order dated 05.04.2025, is quoted
as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Petitioner has raised apprehension that in view of the letter issued on 31st January,
2025 by the Director, Mahila Kalyan Evam Bal Vikas Pushtahar, Government of U.P.
Lucknow, petitioner who has already been engaged through outsourcing agency, may
be disengaged.
In the considered view of the Court, any contract employment if has been offered to a
person and he has been continuing as such the department cannot proceed to
disengage him merely because certain more persons have been engaged.
WRIA No. 15833 of 2026
2

In this view of the matter, therefore, I find that apprehension raised by the petitioner is
ill found, however I may clarify that in the event respondent proceed to make
engagement pursuant to the engagement of Financial Literacy Specialist under work
for empowerment of women pursuant to the directions issued by the Director, Mahila
Kalyan Evam Bal Vikas Pushtahar, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow dated 31st January, 2025,
petitioners continuance on contract basis may not be disturbed.
However, liberty always rests with the respondents to proceed in the matter in
accordance with law and petitioner always has liberty to approach this Court again
as and when any order is passed against him.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted that District
Probation Officer passed an order dated 08.01.2026 treating the petitioner
to be an outsourced employee and directing the outsourcing agency to pay
honorarium admissible to the petitioner. It has also been brought to the
knowledge of the Court that District Probation Officer, Basti has already
referred the matter of the petitioner to respondent No. 2, Director, Mahila
Kalyan and Bal Vikas, U.P., Lucknow for being treated as contractual
employee by its letter dated 9.04.2026.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that since District Probation
Officer, Basti has already recommended the matter before respondent No.
2, it would be appropriate that respondent No. 2 may take a decision in
the light of recommendation made by the District Probation Officer.

5. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner may be given liberty to file a fresh representation before
respondent No. 2 for his grievances.

6. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would
be served in keeping this petition pending. In case the petitioner files the
said representation within ten days from today, the same shall be
considered and decided by respondent No. 2 expeditiously, in accordance
with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter and while deciding
the representation, respondent No. 2 shall also consider the
recommendation made by District Probation Officer by its letter dated
9.04.2026.
WRIA No. 15833 of 2026
3

7. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
September 29, 2026
Nitika Sri.

Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…